Vanessa Walilko 對 AI 公司處理使用者資料的方式、產業對環境的衝擊，以及這些工具侵蝕人類創造力深感憂慮，並坦言自己「對使用 AI 的人非常、非常憤怒」。她的一位朋友不斷傳送 AI 生成的迷你牛影片並堅稱是真的，令她極為惱火；她的表親則將已故祖父母的照片製成 AI 動畫，她形容這是「操弄遺體的傀儡戲」，並表示此事件「絕對」損害了兩人的關係。約會應用程式 Hily 針對美國 3,500 名年輕人所做的調查顯示，64% 的 Z 世代與 56% 的千禧世代交友者表示不願與在日常決策中依賴 AI 的人約會。
研究者指出，這些爭議可能反映出比新技術磨合期更深層的分歧：AI 正在依據人們對未來願景的不同價值觀將社會劃分開來，進而使人際關係趨於複雜。Carnegie Mellon University 倫理學教授 Derek Leben 認為，最明顯的社會效應是「猜疑」——朋友們開始懷疑電子郵件、簡訊甚至婚禮誓詞是否真正出自本人之手。時裝設計師 Victoria Carina 批評人們將 ChatGPT 當作真實人際連結的替代品；在氣候非營利組織工作的 Patrick Galey 則指出，AI 在職場中日益變成強制性任務，「這是作業，不是加分題」。
隨著 AI 更深入地滲透日常生活，這些分歧可能持續擴大。社會組織心理學家 Jeremy Pollack 專攻衝突解決研究，他認為拒絕使用 AI 能在技術環境令人不知所措時恢復「自主感與道德清晰度」。宣稱「我是不用 AI 的人」正逐漸成為一種身分信號——既表達了自己是誰，也愈來愈多地表明自己不願成為什麼樣的人。Carla Milan 等反對者的異議涵蓋隱私、環境成本到人際真實性等個人與社會層面，凸顯出 AI 採用與否已從技術選擇演變為價值認同的表態。
Vanessa Walilko is deeply concerned about how AI companies handle user data, the industry's environmental impact, and the erosion of human creativity, admitting she "gets really, really mad at people who use it." One friend kept sending her AI-generated videos of miniaturized cows, insisting they were real, which she found infuriating; her cousin animated a photograph of their late grandparents with AI, an act she described as "marionetting their corpses," a dispute that has "absolutely" strained their relationship. A survey of 3,500 young people in the US by dating app Hily found that 64% of Gen Z and 56% of millennial daters said they would not date someone who relies on AI for everyday decisions.
Researchers suggest these disputes may reflect something deeper than the growing pains of a new technology: AI is dividing people according to differing values about what kind of future they want, complicating relationships in the process. Derek Leben, an ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, identifies the most obvious social effect as "suspicion" — friends now wonder whether emails, texts, and even wedding vows were truly written by the people who sent them. Fashion designer Victoria Carina criticizes people for treating ChatGPT as a substitute for real human connection, while Patrick Galey, who works at a climate nonprofit, notes that AI is increasingly compulsory at work — "it's being messaged as homework — not extra credit."
As AI becomes more deeply woven into everyday life, these divides may only widen. Social-organizational psychologist Jeremy Pollack, who studies conflict resolution, argues that refusing AI can restore "a sense of agency and moral clarity" when the technological landscape feels overwhelming. Declaring "I'm someone who doesn't use AI" is increasingly becoming an identity signal — expressing both who one is and, crucially, who one does not want to be. The objections of holdouts like Carla Milan span privacy, environmental costs, and interpersonal authenticity, underscoring that AI adoption has evolved from a technological choice into a statement of values.